The GeForce 320M compared to the 9600

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Bobmarine, Apr 13, 2010.

  1. Bobmarine macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #1
    Hi all,

    I was just wondering how much closer the new 13" MBP's graphics come to the old 15"'s graphics, mainly because I have seen an impressive video of the "newly old" 15" MBP playing the Starcraft 2 beta beautifully.

    Is the 320M far from the 9600, or does it kick just a tiny bit of ass? Because I have waited since early december for a MBP 13" update, because I hoped an updated version would be able to run SC2 respectfully.

    So basically, I am not only asking about the difference between the two gfx cards, I am also wondering if the 13" MBP should have the power to run SC2 without the graphics turned so low you can't tell the difference between Warcraft 3 and SC2.

    Thanks
     
  2. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #2
    No benchmarks for the 13" yet. This is the first laptop to use the 320. You'll have to wait a bit.
     
  3. Bobmarine thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
  4. vasuba macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
  5. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #5
  6. maximus06 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #6
  7. twitchtwice macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    #7
    yes. the op is asking about the 320m not the 330gt of the 15 and 17. id like to know this as well.
     
  8. Patrick J macrumors 65816

    Patrick J

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal
    #8
    I'm waiting as well. I suppose we will have to wait for reviews from Gizmodo et al.
     
  9. Yoh macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #9
    OP: Im play SC2 Beta aswell and Im concerned about the graphics aswell... Im wondering what settings you play yours on for the MPB 15''? Mid? High? Ultraaaa?

    Also, since the 320M doesnt have dedicated graphics, is there any chance that it will match up to the other ones that DO have them? Gaming-wise? Does the benchmarks take that into account? (i.e. Card A scores XXXX and Card B scores XXXX, card B has dedicated memory and card A doesnt... do they still perform the same?)
     
  10. Patrick J macrumors 65816

    Patrick J

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal
    #10
    Benchmark, depending on the test, usually returns a number. Higher means better.

    If the card performs better with or without dedicated memory, that is fine, but the benchmarker doesn't really care. What matters is the final result.
     
  11. Cali3350 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    #11
    From what I understand its a downclocked version of the 330M due to heat concerns.

    It should perform similarly, and if your willing to overlock it should be better.
     
  12. Yoh macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #12
    but I dont see them specifying the amount of dedicated memory (notebookcheck) or am I just missing it
     
  13. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #13
    The 320m shares system memory. It's very similar to the 9400m, although it does perform better. It's not very close to the performance of the 9600m gt though.
     
  14. Yoh macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #14
    I mean i dont see the memory amount even on the ones that have dedicated...
     
  15. Patrick J macrumors 65816

    Patrick J

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal
    #15
    256mb or 512mb, depends on the model.
     
  16. Cali3350 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    #16
    I disagree, we cant say that yet.
    Assuming the 320M DOES offer 48 shader cores then in calculation intensive arenas it should be very competitive to the 9600M. Memory bandwidth will be the biggest issue.
     
  17. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #17
    Jes memory bandwidth and its impact is the big unknown. Shading performance should be quite decent and one might also be able to overclock a little.
    upgrading RAM to DDR3 1333 might help the 13" here. I guess Apple uses 1066.

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html

    Just restrict to Intel HD, 9300M G(same as 9400M), 310M, two 320M guesses, 9600M GT and 330M. Then you can see the best guess one can make now as to how it performs and what you can play.

    I think SC2 should work at least I heard it was designed to work on less powerful hardware too.
     
  18. weenerdog macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    #18
    Here's my analysis ;)

    Notebookcheck.com describes the 320m (apple's version) to be slightly faster than the 310m

    In the 3d mark 05 test, these are the scores:

    310m = 7149
    9600m gt = 9592

    So if the 320m is slightly faster than the 310m we could be looking at about 8000 as the result. Therefore it is very likely the 9600m gt will out perform this card... however, the 320M is much more energy efficient, so I think it's a welcome compromise really.

    Then again I don't exactly need 10 hours of battery life... so apple could have gone with something a little more powerful.
     
  19. warstomp macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    #19
    I'm running the SC2 beta on my 13' macbook pro right now with the 9600 and it runs perfectly fine id say its about middle of the line graphics, this keep in mind running a 21.5 external display on even on the 13' screen, in addition this is on a bootcamped windows 7. I really dont think you would have any problem with the graphics on SC2 with the now previous gen Macbook Pro's or the current ones.
     
  20. sporadicMotion macrumors 65816

    sporadicMotion

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Location:
    Your girlfriends place
    #20
    psssst... if you have a 13" MBP then you have a 9400m...

    That is good news for OP though... if SC2 runs on the 9400m, then it will definitely run on the 320m.
     
  21. twitchtwice macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    #21
    interesting result. i wonder what the 320m compares to the 8600gt that my old 2.4ghz 2007 model had. if the 320m has at least the same graphics i may pick up the 13 to save some money.
     
  22. Cali3350 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    #22
    If the 320M does have 48 shader cores (which apple is implying but not actually stating) then it will be much higher in performance than the 310M (which has 16 shader cores).
     
  23. Niiro13 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    Wait, are we actually comparing an integrated graphics card with a card that has dedicated memory? :O

    Anyway, I guess we can roughly estimate the gaming benchmarks? The 320M is supposedly 1.8X faster on Doom 3 than the 9400M. The 9400M got about 29 fps so that would mean that the 320M has 52.2 fps. 9600M GT got 104 fps for 512MB and 95.6 fps for 256MB.

    Granted, these are rough estimates but ah well. We won't know until someone does real benchmarks.
     
  24. weenerdog macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    #24
    That's true, however, the 320m (apple's version) uses system memory (it's an integrated chipset) which will seriously degrade the performance... so despite the huge increase in shader cores their will not be a very substantial increase in performance. But... I'd be over the moon if Apple proved me wrong! ;)
     
  25. Bobmarine thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #25
    How does it look? Is medium graphics acceptable, or have you turned off all the effects and such? And, as it has already been said, I'm sure you mean 13" with the 9600, right?
     

Share This Page